NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25984
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Northern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to recall
furloughed Trackman D. C. Nakoneczny to service on and subsequent to April 4,
1983 (System File C-TC-1649/MG-4118.)
(2) The claim as presented by Senior Assistant General Chairman J. R.
Cook on May 13, 1983 to Manager-Engineering J. R. Rymer shall be allowed as
presented because said claim was not disallowed by Manager-Engineering J. R.
Rymer in accordance with Rule 24(h)(1)A.
(3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, Trackman
D. C. Nakoneczny shall be compensated
'for all hours worked by any junior employe to Mr. Nakoneczny
that was recalled to any location protected by Mr. Nakoneczny's
recall request, continuing until such time as Mr. Nakoneczny
returns to work."'
OPINION OF CLAIM: Carrier submits that Claimant did not comply with Carrier's
recall-notice letter of March 25, 1983, that was mailed to
him at the address shown on his 1982 recall request. By his absence on the
recall date of April 4, 1983, as specified in the letter, Claimant is alleged
to have forfeited seniority; Carrier terminated his status and closed his
service record; Claimant's absence was considered as voluntary severance from
service.
The Agreement covers the mailing of recall letters, providing:
"Rule 5(c)(1) . . . . Employees recalled hereunder must report ten
(10) calendar days after being notified by mail or telegram at the
last known address or forfeit seniority. Postmark date of letter or
date of telegram will constitute date of notice."
Carrier contends that it complied with the provisions of the above
Rule. Claimant contends that it did not receive the March 25 recall letter.
The Organization by letter dated May 13, 1983, notified Carrier to
immediately recall Claimant, and to consider the grievance to include a time
claim for hours of work lost. Carrier's response, dated October 4, 1983,
declining to restore Claimant to service, was untimely under Rule 24(h)(1)(A).
Award Number 25994 Page 2
Docket Number MW-25984
Carrier's time limit violation was tolled by its declination letter
of October 4, 1983, but because of the procedural violation by Carrier, we
will award Claimant compensation, computed on the hourly basis set out in the
Statement of Claim, from and including April 4, 1983, through October 3, 1983.
Based solely on the record before us, we will award that Claimant be
restored to service, with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, but
without compensation for the period from October 4, 1983, forward.
_FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. D -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of March 1986.
j:
i~
,y;l .,. Vv